View Single Post
Old April 16, 2008, 12:10 AM   #35
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 20,814
All this is contingent on your being aware that the threat has been negated.
Correct. If the threat has been negated but you reasonably believe it has not then you would not be penalized for continuing to fire.
In our military unit, our orders were "shoot to kill." Not wound, not maim, not "to stop the threat," but to kill.

In our federal law enforcement agency, we were taught and trained to "shoot to neutralize the threat." That sounds much nicer in a courtroom and more pleasing to the folks who are typically afraid of their own shadow.
With all due respect, I submit that there is more difference than just how it sounds.

The military's job is to kill enemies and break enemy materiel. Plain and simple, there it is. Law Enforcement's job is to protect and serve. Sometimes people get killed by LE, but it is incidental to the main goal of keeping the law-abiding safe.

Self-defense has similar goals to the LE job. The point isn't that you're reducing the number of enemy combatants, it's that you're protecting the good guys.
My advice, in a civilian situation, would not be to "fire until the threat is no longer a threat." My advice would be to fire until you can safely haul ass to a safe location.
Excellent point. Sometimes we forget that evacuation can be a very effective means of preserving life.

If I could plagiarize you somewhat I'd say that the proper tactic would be to fire until the threat is no longer a threat OR until you can safely haul ass to a safe location.
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Page generated in 0.05750 seconds with 7 queries